November 2, 2025 • 25 mins
In this episode of The Deduction podcast, host Kyle Hulehan and co-host Erica York are joined by Alex Durante, Senior Economist at the Tax Foundation, to discuss the Supreme Court's upcoming decision on whether the president can impose $2.2 trillion in tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
The conversation covers the origins and implications of these tariffs, their economic impact on consumers and businesses, and the potential outcomes of the court ruling. They also explore the broader theme of presidential authority in trade regulation and the possible legislative responses. Stay tuned for an insightful breakdown of the tariff landscape and its future implications.
00:00 Introduction and Bananas
00:36 Welcome to The Deduction Podcast
01:15 Tariffs and Presidential Authority
04:15 Impact of Tariffs on Consumers and Businesses
06:58 Bananas as a Case Study
08:42 Personal Stories of Tariff Impact
10:43 Legal Battle Over Tariffs
14:25 Future of Tariff Policies
20:53 Congress vs. Presidential Power
23:32 Conclusion and Listener Engagement
Follow us!
https://twitter.com/TaxFoundation
https://twitter.com/deductionpod
Support the show
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Alex Durante (00:00):
but in the case of bananas, 98% of bananas that we
(00:03):
consume in the US are import.
We can't just produce morebananas.
So, so in that situationconsumers, they, I, if they
really like bananas, you know,they really have, no choice, but
they just pay that, that higherprice.
And of course they could switch.
to other kinds of fruits aswell.
But, again, those are alsofacing tariffs.
So I think that's like one, oneexample where it's really, I
(00:24):
think, pretty difficult forconsumers to insulate themselves
from those price increases.
Erica York (00:30):
Yeah, if your toddler loves bananas you've
gotta pay the higher price.
Arrested Development (00:33):
it's one banana.
Michael, what could it cost?
$10.
Kyle Hulehan (00:37):
Hello and welcome to the Deduction a Tax
Foundation podcast.
I'm your host, Kyle Hulehan, andwe are back today with another
episode, and I am joined by myco-host, Erica York.
Erica, it's great to have youback on the show.
I feel like you might have a afew months of tariff takes to
get off your chest potentially.
Erica York (00:55):
Yeah, I gotta say, you know, I was out with a
newborn, a 6-year-old and athree-year-old, and I thought
that was chaotic, but comingback and catching up on all the
tariff news that happened whileI was out, I think you guys may
have, you guys may have had itworse than I did, keeping up
with all of the tariffs ratherthan keeping up with a newborn.
Kyle Hulehan (01:12):
It's a very close call in this case, I think.
So today we also have AlexDurante, senior Economist here
at Tax Foundation joining us todiscuss tariffs.
Now, I'll kind of set the stagehere for you guys.
The Supreme Court is set todecide on whether the president
can.
Unilaterally imposed 2.2trillion in tariffs.
I wanna start off by going toyou, Erica.
(01:33):
Can you walk us through whatexactly these new tariffs are
and how using the InternationalEmergency Economic Powers Act,
uh, is different from how thepresident has imposed tariffs in
the past?
Erica York (01:44):
So.
If you look at the Constitution,it actually grants the authority
to impose taxes, duties, imposestariffs, all these different
types of taxes to Congress, notto the President.
But throughout the yearsespecially in the post World War
II period, Congress passed lawsto delegate those authorities.
To the president, and in mostcases, the statutes are really
(02:05):
specific.
You know, if imports threatennational security or if imports
are causing undue injury todomestic firms, and you know,
there's some leeway with whatthose.
Phrases mean.
But in most cases there's aprocess that's pretty well
spelled out.
But this law that you refer to aEPA from 1977 is an emergency
(02:26):
powers kind of law for thepresident that doesn't actually
mention the word tariff in itand from when it was passed in
the seventies.
Up until before Trump came backinto office, this law had been
used for 67 differentemergencies, but had never been
used to impose tariffs.
(02:46):
So Trump is really pushing thebounds of what this statute
allows by using it to imposebaseline tariffs.
And you'll recall as we'vetalked about on the show before,
there are two buckets of IEPtariffs.
The first are related to anational emergency.
Fentanyl and border crossingsand those are tariffs on China,
(03:06):
Mexico, and Canada.
And then the other bucket arethese reciprocal tariffs that
were, you know, an idea supposedto be matching trade barriers
that other countries impose onthe us but really are.
random numbers that you don'treally know where they're coming
from.
They range from 10% to 50% andapply to almost every US trading
(03:27):
partner.
So rather than these beingreally narrowly targeted
measures related to.
and time-limited nationalemergencies.
These are just really broadtariffs.
The president has used thisstatute to impose his idea of
baseline tariffs, is essentiallywhat we're talking about.
And all these tariffs add up to,like you said, about$2.3
(03:50):
trillion in taxes over the next.
Decade.
So that's a 10 year measure ofhow much revenue could be
expected if these tariffs remainin place.
But if the Supreme Court strikesit down, of course that revenue
would go away.
That brings me to Alex we'vealready seen billions of dollars
collected, I believe, the totalfrom I EPA tariffs so far.
(04:11):
This calendar year is gettingclose to$90 billion.
But who actually pays thosetariffs?
If we hear President Trump talkabout it, you know, he'll say
This is a tariff on China, thisis a tariff on Canada.
We're gonna make Canada paymore.
But what does the research showso far about who is paying and
how these are burdeningdifferent people?
Alex Durante (04:29):
Right, so the research shows.
Those, that's a combination ofboth consumers and American
businesses that are paying thetariffs.
So the administration likes theclaim that it's actually foreign
firms that have been paying thetariffs.
But that's in fact not the case.
So we have pretty good datashowing that the tariffs.
Themselves are almost fullypassed on to the import price
(04:52):
that the importer's paying,which in many cases is going to
be that importing firm andbusiness.
And then once that transactionhappens then the firm has a
decision to make, which is howmuch of that cost increase do
they want to pass on to thefinal consumer?
And what we've seen so far isthat the burn of the tariff is
(05:14):
being shared by both thatbusiness and the final consumer.
So, the latest evidence thatjust came out, and this is from
a team of Harvard economists andthey have looked specifically at
tariff pass through to thatfinal retail price.
And what they found is thatabout 20% of those tariffs have
(05:35):
been passed on to.
final consumer.
And that itself has had about0.7 percentage points to the
consumer price index.
Now, initially that might notsound like a whole lot, you
know, because as you said,Erica, you know, we've seen
tariffs as high you know, as 50%say on Brazil and India.
So, so the question is, I mean,why are we not even seeing more
(05:56):
price spikes?
And I think the reason for this,and this is coming from a lot of
the survey evidence that we haveof businesses, is that there's a
lot of uncertainty around thetariff regime.
A lot of these businesses youknow, they operate on a contract
basis, they might have alreadylocked in some of their prices
for the year.
So they're gonna be shiftingthose price increases until next
(06:18):
year.
So, so I think while we have youknow, we've seen some, you know,
as I said, some modest priceimpacts so far.
And I think given the evidencethat we've seen, you know, from
the surveys as well, that weshould be expecting more price
increases going forwardespecially as we head into the
holiday season.
Now, of course, this is allassuming.
That the Supreme Court, youknow, upholds, you know, the ie,
(06:40):
but tariffs.
And if they don't you know, thenwe're going to see a lot of
additional you know, pricingdecisions.
That, that will have to be madethere because there will still
be a lot of tariffs left inplace under under other
authorities.
But in, in that situation thoseIEP tariffs would go away.
Erica York (06:58):
I saw a really interesting article this week on
bananas.
You know, if you look at bananaprices over like the past decade
or so, they're really steady.
But since April, banana priceshave increased by more than 5%,
which is because of the tariffs.
So I think.
In addition to these differencesover timing, like, are the
tariffs gonna be here, are theynot?
(07:18):
Do we change our price or not?
You also see a lot of variationin different products.
You know, some of it depends oncan we get any of it from the
United States?
Can it be stockpiled in the caseof bananas?
Like no and no.
So we're seeing that pricingchange show up faster than we do
for other products where theremay be more ability to have some
kind of a buffer.
Alex Durante (07:36):
Bananas are a really good example here for a
couple reasons.
I mean, one is that you just seethe clearest, you know, trend
break in the data from when thetariffs were opposed.
And there was no other obviousexplanation.
Like there was no other, youknow, supply shock that occurred
that would cause bon bananaprices to rise.
And I think the second reason,that's a good example is that
you know, if you're able toshift, some of your production
(07:57):
to the US that does attenuate,the price increases somewhat.
Of course it would not be as lowas they would be if the tariffs
weren't imposed.
But in the case of bananas 98%of bananas that we consume in
the US are import.
We can't just produce morebananas.
So, so in that situation youknow, consumers, they, I, if
they really like bananas, youknow, they really have, no
(08:19):
choice, but they just pay that,that higher price.
And of course they could switch.
to other kinds of fruits aswell.
But, you know, again, those arealso facing tariffs.
So I think that's like one, oneexample where it's really, I
think, pretty difficult forconsumers to insulate themselves
from those price increases.
Erica York (08:36):
Yeah, if your toddler loves bananas you've
gotta pay the higher price.
Kyle Hulehan (08:40):
Exactly, and you know.
I actually, I have a personalstory about tariffs affecting my
life that I saw very recently.
I have a small obsession withConverse, and Converse is
actually made better when youbuy them from Japan.
It's a different company thatmakes them, so if you buy
Converse from Japan, it's areally high quality shoe.
I bought them and it was like130 bucks, and then it got
(09:04):
delivered to me and.
I then got an email being like Ihad to pay$60 on top of that,
which were in additionaltariffs, and I didn't know that.
I had no idea, but it just, butI paid it, like they didn't pay
it.
Nobody else paid.
Alex Durante (09:18):
Apparel.
I would say that's a really goodexample because, you know, as
Eric had mentioned, I mean,there's, so there's certain
kinds of goods where we've seenmore price increases than
others.
And apparel has had one of thelargest price increases a as a
result of the tariffs.
So yeah I'm not, I am notsurprised to hear that.
That was your your personalexperience.
Erica York (09:37):
Yeah, and that's probably due to another change
that was made under A EPA, whichwas ending di minimis.
So prior to that change, if youhad a like low value package
coming in, I think$800 or lessthat essentially just skipped
through the customs process.
There wasn't a tariff oranything like that applied.
Trump has ended di minimis underthe IEPA statute.
(09:59):
And so all of these small dollarpackages, like the$130 shoes you
bought now get a tariff billslapped on.
And given that tariff rates arepretty high right now, that is a
relatively large amount ofrevenue.
But if you look at like theadministrative hassle of looking
through all of these like singlepurchases, these little packages
that are coming through, that'sa huge administrative cost.
(10:21):
To the government for probablyvery little revenue squeeze.
Kyle Hulehan (10:25):
Yeah, and I will say I believe what I read in my
email, and this could be wrong,but was it.
eBay, they're paying it firstand then I'm paying them.
So they have to put out moneyand then I have to pay them.
And that's like a whole thingthat it's just a complicated,
messy process.
It's not simple like you guysare saying.
And it affects us Americans.
But real quick, let's, let'stransition here to talking about
(10:45):
the court fight.
That this sort of legal battlethat's gonna go on.
You know, uh, Alex, to you, youknow, what are the plaintiffs
actually arguing and what makesthis case such a fundamental
test for presidential authorityunder a epa.
Alex Durante (10:59):
Right.
Well, the plans are simplyarguing that the I, the, i, the
IEP authorities do not grant thepresident the authority to
impose tariffs this broad inscope.
You know, as Erica mentionedearlier if you look at the
statute not only does it not usethe word tariffs, but it doesn't
use any other words that aresort of synonymous with tariffs
like duty or taxes.
So it seems to be the, andactually the other thing I think
(11:19):
is important to highlight hereis that the, you know, Congress
around that time did passcertain statutes granting the
President Moore executiveauthority to impose tariffs.
So the question really is, if.
A EA was intended.
And again, a EA came, you know,in, in the late seventies.
I mean, if it really wasintended to give the president
the authority to impose tariffsthis broad, it would be sort of
(11:42):
redundant with respect to theother powers they gave the
President.
And if you look actually, youknow, e Eric had mentioned that,
you know, IPE had been used manytimes throughout the past
several decades.
If you look at the cases.
you know where it was used andhow it was used?
It was mostly related tofreezing assets of uh, foreign
adversaries.
(12:02):
In fact it was first applied byJimmy Carter during the Iran
hostage crisis specifically tofreeze Iranian assets.
So this is a very.
Narrow different circumstancefrom imposing tariffs.
You know, that, that were thisbroad in scope and I think the
government is going to have areally difficult time arguing
that it was the intention ofCongress when they passed these,
(12:25):
you know, emergency powers togive the president authorities
that were that broad.
Erica York (12:30):
And I think another issue that, that some of the
arguments have brought up arethat, you know, this has to be
related to a national emergency.
I forget the exact language, butin the statute it's like, it's a
time sensitive thing.
It's like something that pops upand will end because of the
actions that you take.
of the national emergencies isthat the US is running a trade
deficit, but the US has beenrunning a trade deficit for more
(12:52):
than my entire lifetime.
So that's like not some new.
Emergency that just popped up,that needs to be addressed.
This is like a longstandingissue.
So even if you like, ignore thepart about tariffs, just the
national emergencies that havebeen declared don't match up.
Alex Durante (13:06):
And, and that argument, I think, becomes even
harder for the government todefend because under the
reciprocal tariff regime,they're imposing tariffs of
countries that we even havetrade surpluses with.
I, I think the government, youknow, in that sense, doesn't
really have, a a leg to stand
Kyle Hulehan (13:20):
Yeah, and, and I wonder, you know, especially I
think the president might not behelping his case with maybe
raising tariffs because of acommercial, potentially.
Things like that certainly,probably don't help as.
Alex Durante (13:31):
Well, right.
I mean, just to get into thatexample, you know, the first
round of tariffs that came inFebruary were specifics that
were, so those were the tariffson Canada, Mexico, and China.
And those were, allegedlysupposed to address fentanyl
coming through the border, aswell as you know, the
immigration crisis and bordercrossings, you know, that we
were experiencing earlier in theyear.
And now the president just overthe weekend says he wants to
(13:52):
impose, you know, an additional10% tariff on Canada as he was
offended by a commercial.
I mean, how does that.
to the fentanyl and bordercrisis.
Right.
So, I think it is very unlikelythat the intention was for the
president to be able to imposetariffs because he was offended
by a TV commercial.
Kyle Hulehan (14:10):
Yeah.
And I think, um, you know, Alex,on a different podcast that you
were on a, a few months ago whenwe were talking about a little
bit of crony capitalism, likethat's kind of a little bit the
vibe where you're like, oh,like, it's a little concerning
when you get to that point.
Alex Durante (14:22):
Right.
Kyle Hulehan (14:22):
But, you know, o over to you Eric.
Uh, I wanna do a little bit of.
F forecasting with you, youknow, if the Supreme Court rules
one way or another, you know,how quickly might we see the
real world effects forbusinesses and consumers?
Erica York (14:35):
Yeah, so there's been a lot of speculation about,
you know, if the Supreme Courtstrikes these tariffs down they
could require refunds being paidto anyone who has paid an IEPA
tariff.
So then it becomes a processquestion, does the government
make this a taxpayer friendlyrefund situation or do they make
you jump through a lot of hoops?
(14:57):
But you know, there is a worldwhere.
Importers who have paid tariffsget their money back.
That raises questions too.
Then what if those importers hadraised their prices?
Do they get some sort ofwindfall?
Do prices come down afterthere's all of these knock on
effects from refunds.
There's also a question of like,how much does this really
(15:17):
improve certainty for for theeconomy?
'cause on the one hand, if theSupreme Court says no, the
president cannot use a EPA toimpose tariffs.
All of this system we've builtup of these reciprocal tariffs
of these fentanyl tariffs comescrashing down, but mean the
threat of higher tariffs.
Has gone away, it probably meansthe president is going to try to
impose them through otherchannels or try to get Congress
(15:39):
to do something on tariffs.
So we're not really in a worldof a better trade outlook.
We're just in a world of, okay,this channel has gone away.
We're maybe getting refunds ofthis, you know, 89 billion or so
that has been paid in, but wedon't really know what's
happening next.
Alex Durante (15:56):
And just to follow up on that, you know, thinking
about what comes after, youknow, a EPA, if the tariffs are
struck down.
well there's currently 12ongoing section 2, 3, 2
investigations.
the section 2 3 2 authoritygives the president the ability
to pose tariffs up and theinterest of national security.
And those are product focusedtariffs.
So, so the latest ones that havebeen announced were furniture
(16:18):
tariffs.
There's ones on medium and heavytrucks that are gonna be coming
November 1st.
And then throughout the year wehad section 2, 3, 2 tariffs
imposed on auto steel andaluminum and and certain
derivatives of copper.
So there's still a lot of youknow, investigations.
There, there is, you know, astrong likelihood that you know,
tariffs will be on thoseproducts down the road.
(16:41):
And then.
There's also the possibilitythat the president could use
other authorities that he usedwhen, his first term.
So this would be the section 3,3 0 1 tariffs which he used to
target China's unfair anddiscriminatory trade practices.
He could, you know, we couldpotentially see more of those
down the road.
And then finally there, there'sa sort of, less used provision
(17:04):
by less, I mean actually thiswas only, I believe, only used
once ever, which is a section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, which
gives the present the authorityto impose broad tariffs up to
15% to address balance ofpayments and trade deficit
related issues.
Which sounds a lot like the IEthe IE reciprocal tariffs.
However, these tariffs could notbe higher than 15% and could
(17:25):
only be in effect for 150 daysunless congress approve an
extension, which I think givenall the debates that are going
on right now, I think it ispretty unlikely in that
situation that they wouldapprove you know, extending
those.
But so.
Yeah, I do think that theSupreme Court overturning the IE
Pitar, I mean, this wouldsignificantly hamstring the
president's ability to opposetariffs that broadly.
(17:48):
But I don't think we would, youknow, I don't think we would be
quite out of the woods yetbecause there are so many
ongoing related productinvestigations and it seems
likely the president is going toimpose more tariffs on those
goods down the road.
Erica York (18:02):
And those authorities can be abused too.
Like if you look at the section2 32 steel and aluminum tariffs.
Okay.
So, you know, like primarysteel, we need to have that for
national security reasons, eventhough the Department of Defense
has kind of said, no, we've gotwhat we need.
Well, if you look at what hashappened with Section 2 32
tariffs.
There's been an inclusionprocess and the tariffs have
(18:24):
been applied to derivatives andcompanies can ask the government
to.
it further to apply to morederivative products.
So now we're in a spot whereinstead of just a applying to
like the metals themselves,steel and aluminum, the national
security steel and aluminumtariffs apply to the aluminum
content of tennis rackets and ofcanoes and of baseball bats.
(18:45):
Which is so far removed fromnational security.
So it just shows like.
It can be abused.
It can mushroom beyond just, youknow, what you might think is,
you know, laid out in thestatute.
So like Alex said we're notreally out of the woods here.
Kyle Hulehan (18:59):
Yeah, and I'm just wondering and if you guys don't
wanna go on the record for this,that's totally fine.
I, I just wonder if either ofyou have any idea, like, based
on what you guys know, likewhich way the, the court would
be leaning or, or there's justno way to know.
Like, is it just all up in theair?
What do you guys think?
Erica York (19:13):
I say, I've been watching betting markets.
Kyle Hulehan (19:15):
Yeah.
Erica York (19:16):
you know, more people think that the tariffs
will be struck down than upheld,but like,
Kyle Hulehan (19:22):
Yeah.
Erica York (19:23):
who knows?
There's just as many peoplearguing like, well, maybe the
court will rule in favor ofthis, even though that would
kind of be contradictory toother rulings recently on you
know, presidential authority,like regarding student loan
forgiveness and that sort ofthing.
So it's, yeah, I don't, I don'thave good sense.,
Alex Durante (19:39):
if you actually look at the US Court of Appeals
decision, which was a seven fourdecision against the government.
The seven hour in the majoritywere comprised of judges that
had been a appointed by bothRepublican and Democrat
administrations.
However, for the four thatdissented.
And that agreed with thegovernment's argument.
There were also there were twodemocratically appointed
(19:59):
justices and even two Republicanappointed justice judges.
So, meaning that it's you know,you really it's, I think it's
really hard to say,
Kyle Hulehan (20:07):
yeah.
Alex Durante (20:08):
way, which way it goes.
I mean, I mean, I do think wehave seen instances with at
least a couple of justices onthe Supreme Court.
They have been, willing to ruleA against the president and
limit some of his authority.
So I am personally somewhatoptimistic that the IEP tariffs
will be you know, overturned.
But I think it is, you know, aswe said, it's hard to say
(20:28):
without any kind of a absolutecertainty.
Erica York (20:31):
Have you placed any bets on it?
Alex
Alex Durante (20:33):
no.
Um, My, uh,
Kyle Hulehan (20:36):
We're not,
Erica York (20:36):
down.
Alex Durante (20:37):
yeah, yeah,
Kyle Hulehan (20:37):
You know, that's.
Alex Durante (20:38):
my, yeah, no my my, my election bet betting days
are are in the are in the pastfor me.
Yeah.
My, my fiance I'll just say myfiance would not be happy with
me.
I'll say that.
Erica York (20:53):
All right, so, so if we step back from all of that
Alex, what do you think thistells us about, like, the
balance of power betweenCongress and the president and
where that's headed?
You know, I personally wish wewould see Congress step up and
vote to pull back some of thispower from the president.
It doesn't seem like that'slikely, it's kind of up to the
court at this point, but kind oflooking a little bit longer term
(21:16):
where do you think that thebalance will lie?
Alex Durante (21:17):
So I mean, look, the unfortunate cases as I think
we've highlighted thisdiscussion now even without a
EPA, under you know, the 74Trade Act and also the 1962.
trade Expansion Act, which gavethe president his section 2, 3,
2 authorities.
You know, as a result of thoselegisl those pieces of
legislation, the president doeshave, broad authority to impose
tariffs.
And that's a choice thatCongress made at the time.
(21:39):
Of course it's a choice thatthey can choose to undo.
And I think that given, youknow, how we've seen, you know,
as Erika these executive powersbeing abused, I think you know,
it's possible that we could see.
Over the next few years thatcongress, you know, maybe will
try to rescind or return some ofthat power to the legislative
(22:00):
branch.
Of course, you know, it's alsopossible that when a new
administration comes in, youknow, they try to use, those
trade powers to continue to dotariffs, you know, in the more
limited scope than what'shappening now.
And, you know, we're I, and thenwe're, you know, potentially
never, really freed from thisthe, this cycle um, that we're
in.
But I do think though thecurrent you know, circumstances
(22:21):
that we've seen this year, youknow, I, I think does have,
Certain legislators, rethinkingthese powers.
and there were a couple bills.
Um, I believe one was introducedby Senator Rand Paul earlier
this year.
There might have been anotherbill.
There were a couple of billsfloating around in Congress.
That would return on theseauthorities to the legislative
branch.
But they have not, you know,they have not been getting you
(22:42):
know, a lot of traction, I thinkbecause a lot don't wanna be
seen as a going against thepresident in that fashion.
I think that's something we'llhave to just, you know, keep
following.
But, you know, I think it's, Ithink it is possible that we do
see.
Down the road, Congress takeback some of its powers as it
relates to trade.
Erica York (22:58):
I think even this week or before the end of
October, the Senate is gonnavote on maybe three different.
Measures or motions related tothe I EPA tariffs.
So looking at like the NationalEmergency Declaration looking at
Brazil and Canada specifically.
So it will be interesting ifthey do get to take a vote on
that to see how republicans inparticular decide to participate
(23:20):
in that vote.
Whether they're ready to kind ofgo on record and say, yeah, this
is.
has gotten out of control.
This needs pulled back, orwhether they continue to defer
to the president.
Kyle Hulehan (23:32):
Now as we're starting to wrap up here, what
should listeners, you know, bewatching for when oral arguments
begin on November 5th and, andhow could they keep up with the
latest analysis here?
Erica York (23:43):
we'll be covering it on the blog.
We might do another podcastepisode talking with some folks
with legal expertise after theoral arguments take place.
But one thing that, that thefolks over at Cato um, Scott and
Colin and Clark and their briefand in their writing about the
ultimate decision have beentalking about is, you know, if
you look at the government'sarguments, they're making some
(24:03):
really fantastical claims, like,you know, this is gonna.
Decimate the federal budget.
If the president doesn't havethis authority, this is gonna be
terrible for the economy.
Terrible for businesses.
That's all very far removed fromthe legal question at hand.
And so one of the things that,that they've been saying and
using some of our modeling to,to argue is that, even if you
(24:24):
take these, you know,fantastical economic and
budgetary claims from thegovernment and look at the
actual analysis done thegovernment's claims don't line
up with reality.
So I think one of the thingsI'll be listening for is, you
know, whether the questions arerelated to these claims and
what's gonna happen to theeconomy and what's gonna happen
to the federal budget, orwhether it's really.
(24:45):
More focused on, okay, is therea national emergency?
Does the statute allow for this?
Are there other, you know, legalavenues that the president could
use to impose tariffs if thesereally were problems?
You know, I'm a legal expert atall, but I think that will tell
us some of which way thejustices are leaning by the
types of questions they ask, howhard they push back on, on the
(25:06):
government's claims about theimportance of these supposed
tariff powers.
Kyle Hulehan (25:10):
Yeah.
And you know what?
We have a wonderful resource onour website, that all three of
us work on regularly and areconstantly updating and it is
confusing and chaotic to keep itall going, but we managed to
keep it all going together.
And so as we're signing offhere, guys, I just wanna thank
you for breaking all of thisdown for us.
This is a really, I think,excellent way for people to kind
of understand what's happening.
And if you guys have any burningquestions, you can send them our
(25:33):
way.
You can drop a comment onYouTube, you can email us at.
podcast@taxfoundation.org.
You can DM us on Twitter atDeduction Pod.
Thank you all so much forlistening.
but in the case of bananas, 98% of bananas that we
(00:03):
consume in the US are import.
We can't just produce morebananas.
So, so in that situationconsumers, they, I, if they
really like bananas, you know,they really have, no choice, but
they just pay that, that higherprice.
And of course they could switch.
to other kinds of fruits aswell.
But, again, those are alsofacing tariffs.
So I think that's like one, oneexample where it's really, I
(00:24):
think, pretty difficult forconsumers to insulate themselves
from those price increases.
Erica York (00:30):
Yeah, if your toddler loves bananas you've
gotta pay the higher price.
Arrested Development (00:33):
it's one banana.
Michael, what could it cost?
$10.
Kyle Hulehan (00:37):
Hello and welcome to the Deduction a Tax
Foundation podcast.
I'm your host, Kyle Hulehan, andwe are back today with another
episode, and I am joined by myco-host, Erica York.
Erica, it's great to have youback on the show.
I feel like you might have a afew months of tariff takes to
get off your chest potentially.
Erica York (00:55):
Yeah, I gotta say, you know, I was out with a
newborn, a 6-year-old and athree-year-old, and I thought
that was chaotic, but comingback and catching up on all the
tariff news that happened whileI was out, I think you guys may
have, you guys may have had itworse than I did, keeping up
with all of the tariffs ratherthan keeping up with a newborn.
Kyle Hulehan (01:12):
It's a very close call in this case, I think.
So today we also have AlexDurante, senior Economist here
at Tax Foundation joining us todiscuss tariffs.
Now, I'll kind of set the stagehere for you guys.
The Supreme Court is set todecide on whether the president
can.
Unilaterally imposed 2.2trillion in tariffs.
I wanna start off by going toyou, Erica.
(01:33):
Can you walk us through whatexactly these new tariffs are
and how using the InternationalEmergency Economic Powers Act,
uh, is different from how thepresident has imposed tariffs in
the past?
Erica York (01:44):
So.
If you look at the Constitution,it actually grants the authority
to impose taxes, duties, imposestariffs, all these different
types of taxes to Congress, notto the President.
But throughout the yearsespecially in the post World War
II period, Congress passed lawsto delegate those authorities.
To the president, and in mostcases, the statutes are really
(02:05):
specific.
You know, if imports threatennational security or if imports
are causing undue injury todomestic firms, and you know,
there's some leeway with whatthose.
Phrases mean.
But in most cases there's aprocess that's pretty well
spelled out.
But this law that you refer to aEPA from 1977 is an emergency
(02:26):
powers kind of law for thepresident that doesn't actually
mention the word tariff in itand from when it was passed in
the seventies.
Up until before Trump came backinto office, this law had been
used for 67 differentemergencies, but had never been
used to impose tariffs.
(02:46):
So Trump is really pushing thebounds of what this statute
allows by using it to imposebaseline tariffs.
And you'll recall as we'vetalked about on the show before,
there are two buckets of IEPtariffs.
The first are related to anational emergency.
Fentanyl and border crossingsand those are tariffs on China,
(03:06):
Mexico, and Canada.
And then the other bucket arethese reciprocal tariffs that
were, you know, an idea supposedto be matching trade barriers
that other countries impose onthe us but really are.
random numbers that you don'treally know where they're coming
from.
They range from 10% to 50% andapply to almost every US trading
(03:27):
partner.
So rather than these beingreally narrowly targeted
measures related to.
and time-limited nationalemergencies.
These are just really broadtariffs.
The president has used thisstatute to impose his idea of
baseline tariffs, is essentiallywhat we're talking about.
And all these tariffs add up to,like you said, about$2.3
(03:50):
trillion in taxes over the next.
Decade.
So that's a 10 year measure ofhow much revenue could be
expected if these tariffs remainin place.
But if the Supreme Court strikesit down, of course that revenue
would go away.
That brings me to Alex we'vealready seen billions of dollars
collected, I believe, the totalfrom I EPA tariffs so far.
(04:11):
This calendar year is gettingclose to$90 billion.
But who actually pays thosetariffs?
If we hear President Trump talkabout it, you know, he'll say
This is a tariff on China, thisis a tariff on Canada.
We're gonna make Canada paymore.
But what does the research showso far about who is paying and
how these are burdeningdifferent people?
Alex Durante (04:29):
Right, so the research shows.
Those, that's a combination ofboth consumers and American
businesses that are paying thetariffs.
So the administration likes theclaim that it's actually foreign
firms that have been paying thetariffs.
But that's in fact not the case.
So we have pretty good datashowing that the tariffs.
Themselves are almost fullypassed on to the import price
(04:52):
that the importer's paying,which in many cases is going to
be that importing firm andbusiness.
And then once that transactionhappens then the firm has a
decision to make, which is howmuch of that cost increase do
they want to pass on to thefinal consumer?
And what we've seen so far isthat the burn of the tariff is
(05:14):
being shared by both thatbusiness and the final consumer.
So, the latest evidence thatjust came out, and this is from
a team of Harvard economists andthey have looked specifically at
tariff pass through to thatfinal retail price.
And what they found is thatabout 20% of those tariffs have
(05:35):
been passed on to.
final consumer.
And that itself has had about0.7 percentage points to the
consumer price index.
Now, initially that might notsound like a whole lot, you
know, because as you said,Erica, you know, we've seen
tariffs as high you know, as 50%say on Brazil and India.
So, so the question is, I mean,why are we not even seeing more
(05:56):
price spikes?
And I think the reason for this,and this is coming from a lot of
the survey evidence that we haveof businesses, is that there's a
lot of uncertainty around thetariff regime.
A lot of these businesses youknow, they operate on a contract
basis, they might have alreadylocked in some of their prices
for the year.
So they're gonna be shiftingthose price increases until next
(06:18):
year.
So, so I think while we have youknow, we've seen some, you know,
as I said, some modest priceimpacts so far.
And I think given the evidencethat we've seen, you know, from
the surveys as well, that weshould be expecting more price
increases going forwardespecially as we head into the
holiday season.
Now, of course, this is allassuming.
That the Supreme Court, youknow, upholds, you know, the ie,
(06:40):
but tariffs.
And if they don't you know, thenwe're going to see a lot of
additional you know, pricingdecisions.
That, that will have to be madethere because there will still
be a lot of tariffs left inplace under under other
authorities.
But in, in that situation thoseIEP tariffs would go away.
Erica York (06:58):
I saw a really interesting article this week on
bananas.
You know, if you look at bananaprices over like the past decade
or so, they're really steady.
But since April, banana priceshave increased by more than 5%,
which is because of the tariffs.
So I think.
In addition to these differencesover timing, like, are the
tariffs gonna be here, are theynot?
(07:18):
Do we change our price or not?
You also see a lot of variationin different products.
You know, some of it depends oncan we get any of it from the
United States?
Can it be stockpiled in the caseof bananas?
Like no and no.
So we're seeing that pricingchange show up faster than we do
for other products where theremay be more ability to have some
kind of a buffer.
Alex Durante (07:36):
Bananas are a really good example here for a
couple reasons.
I mean, one is that you just seethe clearest, you know, trend
break in the data from when thetariffs were opposed.
And there was no other obviousexplanation.
Like there was no other, youknow, supply shock that occurred
that would cause bon bananaprices to rise.
And I think the second reason,that's a good example is that
you know, if you're able toshift, some of your production
(07:57):
to the US that does attenuate,the price increases somewhat.
Of course it would not be as lowas they would be if the tariffs
weren't imposed.
But in the case of bananas 98%of bananas that we consume in
the US are import.
We can't just produce morebananas.
So, so in that situation youknow, consumers, they, I, if
they really like bananas, youknow, they really have, no
(08:19):
choice, but they just pay that,that higher price.
And of course they could switch.
to other kinds of fruits aswell.
But, you know, again, those arealso facing tariffs.
So I think that's like one, oneexample where it's really, I
think, pretty difficult forconsumers to insulate themselves
from those price increases.
Erica York (08:36):
Yeah, if your toddler loves bananas you've
gotta pay the higher price.
Kyle Hulehan (08:40):
Exactly, and you know.
I actually, I have a personalstory about tariffs affecting my
life that I saw very recently.
I have a small obsession withConverse, and Converse is
actually made better when youbuy them from Japan.
It's a different company thatmakes them, so if you buy
Converse from Japan, it's areally high quality shoe.
I bought them and it was like130 bucks, and then it got
(09:04):
delivered to me and.
I then got an email being like Ihad to pay$60 on top of that,
which were in additionaltariffs, and I didn't know that.
I had no idea, but it just, butI paid it, like they didn't pay
it.
Nobody else paid.
Alex Durante (09:18):
Apparel.
I would say that's a really goodexample because, you know, as
Eric had mentioned, I mean,there's, so there's certain
kinds of goods where we've seenmore price increases than
others.
And apparel has had one of thelargest price increases a as a
result of the tariffs.
So yeah I'm not, I am notsurprised to hear that.
That was your your personalexperience.
Erica York (09:37):
Yeah, and that's probably due to another change
that was made under A EPA, whichwas ending di minimis.
So prior to that change, if youhad a like low value package
coming in, I think$800 or lessthat essentially just skipped
through the customs process.
There wasn't a tariff oranything like that applied.
Trump has ended di minimis underthe IEPA statute.
(09:59):
And so all of these small dollarpackages, like the$130 shoes you
bought now get a tariff billslapped on.
And given that tariff rates arepretty high right now, that is a
relatively large amount ofrevenue.
But if you look at like theadministrative hassle of looking
through all of these like singlepurchases, these little packages
that are coming through, that'sa huge administrative cost.
(10:21):
To the government for probablyvery little revenue squeeze.
Kyle Hulehan (10:25):
Yeah, and I will say I believe what I read in my
email, and this could be wrong,but was it.
eBay, they're paying it firstand then I'm paying them.
So they have to put out moneyand then I have to pay them.
And that's like a whole thingthat it's just a complicated,
messy process.
It's not simple like you guysare saying.
And it affects us Americans.
But real quick, let's, let'stransition here to talking about
(10:45):
the court fight.
That this sort of legal battlethat's gonna go on.
You know, uh, Alex, to you, youknow, what are the plaintiffs
actually arguing and what makesthis case such a fundamental
test for presidential authorityunder a epa.
Alex Durante (10:59):
Right.
Well, the plans are simplyarguing that the I, the, i, the
IEP authorities do not grant thepresident the authority to
impose tariffs this broad inscope.
You know, as Erica mentionedearlier if you look at the
statute not only does it not usethe word tariffs, but it doesn't
use any other words that aresort of synonymous with tariffs
like duty or taxes.
So it seems to be the, andactually the other thing I think
(11:19):
is important to highlight hereis that the, you know, Congress
around that time did passcertain statutes granting the
President Moore executiveauthority to impose tariffs.
So the question really is, if.
A EA was intended.
And again, a EA came, you know,in, in the late seventies.
I mean, if it really wasintended to give the president
the authority to impose tariffsthis broad, it would be sort of
(11:42):
redundant with respect to theother powers they gave the
President.
And if you look actually, youknow, e Eric had mentioned that,
you know, IPE had been used manytimes throughout the past
several decades.
If you look at the cases.
you know where it was used andhow it was used?
It was mostly related tofreezing assets of uh, foreign
adversaries.
(12:02):
In fact it was first applied byJimmy Carter during the Iran
hostage crisis specifically tofreeze Iranian assets.
So this is a very.
Narrow different circumstancefrom imposing tariffs.
You know, that, that were thisbroad in scope and I think the
government is going to have areally difficult time arguing
that it was the intention ofCongress when they passed these,
(12:25):
you know, emergency powers togive the president authorities
that were that broad.
Erica York (12:30):
And I think another issue that, that some of the
arguments have brought up arethat, you know, this has to be
related to a national emergency.
I forget the exact language, butin the statute it's like, it's a
time sensitive thing.
It's like something that pops upand will end because of the
actions that you take.
of the national emergencies isthat the US is running a trade
deficit, but the US has beenrunning a trade deficit for more
(12:52):
than my entire lifetime.
So that's like not some new.
Emergency that just popped up,that needs to be addressed.
This is like a longstandingissue.
So even if you like, ignore thepart about tariffs, just the
national emergencies that havebeen declared don't match up.
Alex Durante (13:06):
And, and that argument, I think, becomes even
harder for the government todefend because under the
reciprocal tariff regime,they're imposing tariffs of
countries that we even havetrade surpluses with.
I, I think the government, youknow, in that sense, doesn't
really have, a a leg to stand
Kyle Hulehan (13:20):
Yeah, and, and I wonder, you know, especially I
think the president might not behelping his case with maybe
raising tariffs because of acommercial, potentially.
Things like that certainly,probably don't help as.
Alex Durante (13:31):
Well, right.
I mean, just to get into thatexample, you know, the first
round of tariffs that came inFebruary were specifics that
were, so those were the tariffson Canada, Mexico, and China.
And those were, allegedlysupposed to address fentanyl
coming through the border, aswell as you know, the
immigration crisis and bordercrossings, you know, that we
were experiencing earlier in theyear.
And now the president just overthe weekend says he wants to
(13:52):
impose, you know, an additional10% tariff on Canada as he was
offended by a commercial.
I mean, how does that.
to the fentanyl and bordercrisis.
Right.
So, I think it is very unlikelythat the intention was for the
president to be able to imposetariffs because he was offended
by a TV commercial.
Kyle Hulehan (14:10):
Yeah.
And I think, um, you know, Alex,on a different podcast that you
were on a, a few months ago whenwe were talking about a little
bit of crony capitalism, likethat's kind of a little bit the
vibe where you're like, oh,like, it's a little concerning
when you get to that point.
Alex Durante (14:22):
Right.
Kyle Hulehan (14:22):
But, you know, o over to you Eric.
Uh, I wanna do a little bit of.
F forecasting with you, youknow, if the Supreme Court rules
one way or another, you know,how quickly might we see the
real world effects forbusinesses and consumers?
Erica York (14:35):
Yeah, so there's been a lot of speculation about,
you know, if the Supreme Courtstrikes these tariffs down they
could require refunds being paidto anyone who has paid an IEPA
tariff.
So then it becomes a processquestion, does the government
make this a taxpayer friendlyrefund situation or do they make
you jump through a lot of hoops?
(14:57):
But you know, there is a worldwhere.
Importers who have paid tariffsget their money back.
That raises questions too.
Then what if those importers hadraised their prices?
Do they get some sort ofwindfall?
Do prices come down afterthere's all of these knock on
effects from refunds.
There's also a question of like,how much does this really
(15:17):
improve certainty for for theeconomy?
'cause on the one hand, if theSupreme Court says no, the
president cannot use a EPA toimpose tariffs.
All of this system we've builtup of these reciprocal tariffs
of these fentanyl tariffs comescrashing down, but mean the
threat of higher tariffs.
Has gone away, it probably meansthe president is going to try to
impose them through otherchannels or try to get Congress
(15:39):
to do something on tariffs.
So we're not really in a worldof a better trade outlook.
We're just in a world of, okay,this channel has gone away.
We're maybe getting refunds ofthis, you know, 89 billion or so
that has been paid in, but wedon't really know what's
happening next.
Alex Durante (15:56):
And just to follow up on that, you know, thinking
about what comes after, youknow, a EPA, if the tariffs are
struck down.
well there's currently 12ongoing section 2, 3, 2
investigations.
the section 2 3 2 authoritygives the president the ability
to pose tariffs up and theinterest of national security.
And those are product focusedtariffs.
So, so the latest ones that havebeen announced were furniture
(16:18):
tariffs.
There's ones on medium and heavytrucks that are gonna be coming
November 1st.
And then throughout the year wehad section 2, 3, 2 tariffs
imposed on auto steel andaluminum and and certain
derivatives of copper.
So there's still a lot of youknow, investigations.
There, there is, you know, astrong likelihood that you know,
tariffs will be on thoseproducts down the road.
(16:41):
And then.
There's also the possibilitythat the president could use
other authorities that he usedwhen, his first term.
So this would be the section 3,3 0 1 tariffs which he used to
target China's unfair anddiscriminatory trade practices.
He could, you know, we couldpotentially see more of those
down the road.
And then finally there, there'sa sort of, less used provision
(17:04):
by less, I mean actually thiswas only, I believe, only used
once ever, which is a section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, which
gives the present the authorityto impose broad tariffs up to
15% to address balance ofpayments and trade deficit
related issues.
Which sounds a lot like the IEthe IE reciprocal tariffs.
However, these tariffs could notbe higher than 15% and could
(17:25):
only be in effect for 150 daysunless congress approve an
extension, which I think givenall the debates that are going
on right now, I think it ispretty unlikely in that
situation that they wouldapprove you know, extending
those.
But so.
Yeah, I do think that theSupreme Court overturning the IE
Pitar, I mean, this wouldsignificantly hamstring the
president's ability to opposetariffs that broadly.
(17:48):
But I don't think we would, youknow, I don't think we would be
quite out of the woods yetbecause there are so many
ongoing related productinvestigations and it seems
likely the president is going toimpose more tariffs on those
goods down the road.
Erica York (18:02):
And those authorities can be abused too.
Like if you look at the section2 32 steel and aluminum tariffs.
Okay.
So, you know, like primarysteel, we need to have that for
national security reasons, eventhough the Department of Defense
has kind of said, no, we've gotwhat we need.
Well, if you look at what hashappened with Section 2 32
tariffs.
There's been an inclusionprocess and the tariffs have
(18:24):
been applied to derivatives andcompanies can ask the government
to.
it further to apply to morederivative products.
So now we're in a spot whereinstead of just a applying to
like the metals themselves,steel and aluminum, the national
security steel and aluminumtariffs apply to the aluminum
content of tennis rackets and ofcanoes and of baseball bats.
(18:45):
Which is so far removed fromnational security.
So it just shows like.
It can be abused.
It can mushroom beyond just, youknow, what you might think is,
you know, laid out in thestatute.
So like Alex said we're notreally out of the woods here.
Kyle Hulehan (18:59):
Yeah, and I'm just wondering and if you guys don't
wanna go on the record for this,that's totally fine.
I, I just wonder if either ofyou have any idea, like, based
on what you guys know, likewhich way the, the court would
be leaning or, or there's justno way to know.
Like, is it just all up in theair?
What do you guys think?
Erica York (19:13):
I say, I've been watching betting markets.
Kyle Hulehan (19:15):
Yeah.
Erica York (19:16):
you know, more people think that the tariffs
will be struck down than upheld,but like,
Kyle Hulehan (19:22):
Yeah.
Erica York (19:23):
who knows?
There's just as many peoplearguing like, well, maybe the
court will rule in favor ofthis, even though that would
kind of be contradictory toother rulings recently on you
know, presidential authority,like regarding student loan
forgiveness and that sort ofthing.
So it's, yeah, I don't, I don'thave good sense.,
Alex Durante (19:39):
if you actually look at the US Court of Appeals
decision, which was a seven fourdecision against the government.
The seven hour in the majoritywere comprised of judges that
had been a appointed by bothRepublican and Democrat
administrations.
However, for the four thatdissented.
And that agreed with thegovernment's argument.
There were also there were twodemocratically appointed
(19:59):
justices and even two Republicanappointed justice judges.
So, meaning that it's you know,you really it's, I think it's
really hard to say,
Kyle Hulehan (20:07):
yeah.
Alex Durante (20:08):
way, which way it goes.
I mean, I mean, I do think wehave seen instances with at
least a couple of justices onthe Supreme Court.
They have been, willing to ruleA against the president and
limit some of his authority.
So I am personally somewhatoptimistic that the IEP tariffs
will be you know, overturned.
But I think it is, you know, aswe said, it's hard to say
(20:28):
without any kind of a absolutecertainty.
Erica York (20:31):
Have you placed any bets on it?
Alex
Alex Durante (20:33):
no.
Um, My, uh,
Kyle Hulehan (20:36):
We're not,
Erica York (20:36):
down.
Alex Durante (20:37):
yeah, yeah,
Kyle Hulehan (20:37):
You know, that's.
Alex Durante (20:38):
my, yeah, no my my, my election bet betting days
are are in the are in the pastfor me.
Yeah.
My, my fiance I'll just say myfiance would not be happy with
me.
I'll say that.
Erica York (20:53):
All right, so, so if we step back from all of that
Alex, what do you think thistells us about, like, the
balance of power betweenCongress and the president and
where that's headed?
You know, I personally wish wewould see Congress step up and
vote to pull back some of thispower from the president.
It doesn't seem like that'slikely, it's kind of up to the
court at this point, but kind oflooking a little bit longer term
(21:16):
where do you think that thebalance will lie?
Alex Durante (21:17):
So I mean, look, the unfortunate cases as I think
we've highlighted thisdiscussion now even without a
EPA, under you know, the 74Trade Act and also the 1962.
trade Expansion Act, which gavethe president his section 2, 3,
2 authorities.
You know, as a result of thoselegisl those pieces of
legislation, the president doeshave, broad authority to impose
tariffs.
And that's a choice thatCongress made at the time.
(21:39):
Of course it's a choice thatthey can choose to undo.
And I think that given, youknow, how we've seen, you know,
as Erika these executive powersbeing abused, I think you know,
it's possible that we could see.
Over the next few years thatcongress, you know, maybe will
try to rescind or return some ofthat power to the legislative
(22:00):
branch.
Of course, you know, it's alsopossible that when a new
administration comes in, youknow, they try to use, those
trade powers to continue to dotariffs, you know, in the more
limited scope than what'shappening now.
And, you know, we're I, and thenwe're, you know, potentially
never, really freed from thisthe, this cycle um, that we're
in.
But I do think though thecurrent you know, circumstances
(22:21):
that we've seen this year, youknow, I, I think does have,
Certain legislators, rethinkingthese powers.
and there were a couple bills.
Um, I believe one was introducedby Senator Rand Paul earlier
this year.
There might have been anotherbill.
There were a couple of billsfloating around in Congress.
That would return on theseauthorities to the legislative
branch.
But they have not, you know,they have not been getting you
(22:42):
know, a lot of traction, I thinkbecause a lot don't wanna be
seen as a going against thepresident in that fashion.
I think that's something we'llhave to just, you know, keep
following.
But, you know, I think it's, Ithink it is possible that we do
see.
Down the road, Congress takeback some of its powers as it
relates to trade.
Erica York (22:58):
I think even this week or before the end of
October, the Senate is gonnavote on maybe three different.
Measures or motions related tothe I EPA tariffs.
So looking at like the NationalEmergency Declaration looking at
Brazil and Canada specifically.
So it will be interesting ifthey do get to take a vote on
that to see how republicans inparticular decide to participate
(23:20):
in that vote.
Whether they're ready to kind ofgo on record and say, yeah, this
is.
has gotten out of control.
This needs pulled back, orwhether they continue to defer
to the president.
Kyle Hulehan (23:32):
Now as we're starting to wrap up here, what
should listeners, you know, bewatching for when oral arguments
begin on November 5th and, andhow could they keep up with the
latest analysis here?
Erica York (23:43):
we'll be covering it on the blog.
We might do another podcastepisode talking with some folks
with legal expertise after theoral arguments take place.
But one thing that, that thefolks over at Cato um, Scott and
Colin and Clark and their briefand in their writing about the
ultimate decision have beentalking about is, you know, if
you look at the government'sarguments, they're making some
(24:03):
really fantastical claims, like,you know, this is gonna.
Decimate the federal budget.
If the president doesn't havethis authority, this is gonna be
terrible for the economy.
Terrible for businesses.
That's all very far removed fromthe legal question at hand.
And so one of the things that,that they've been saying and
using some of our modeling to,to argue is that, even if you
(24:24):
take these, you know,fantastical economic and
budgetary claims from thegovernment and look at the
actual analysis done thegovernment's claims don't line
up with reality.
So I think one of the thingsI'll be listening for is, you
know, whether the questions arerelated to these claims and
what's gonna happen to theeconomy and what's gonna happen
to the federal budget, orwhether it's really.
(24:45):
More focused on, okay, is therea national emergency?
Does the statute allow for this?
Are there other, you know, legalavenues that the president could
use to impose tariffs if thesereally were problems?
You know, I'm a legal expert atall, but I think that will tell
us some of which way thejustices are leaning by the
types of questions they ask, howhard they push back on, on the
(25:06):
government's claims about theimportance of these supposed
tariff powers.
Kyle Hulehan (25:10):
Yeah.
And you know what?
We have a wonderful resource onour website, that all three of
us work on regularly and areconstantly updating and it is
confusing and chaotic to keep itall going, but we managed to
keep it all going together.
And so as we're signing offhere, guys, I just wanna thank
you for breaking all of thisdown for us.
This is a really, I think,excellent way for people to kind
of understand what's happening.
And if you guys have any burningquestions, you can send them our
(25:33):
way.
You can drop a comment onYouTube, you can email us at.
podcast@taxfoundation.org.
You can DM us on Twitter atDeduction Pod.
Thank you all so much forlistening.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Ruthie's Table 4
For more than 30 years The River Cafe in London, has been the home-from-home of artists, architects, designers, actors, collectors, writers, activists, and politicians. Michael Caine, Glenn Close, JJ Abrams, Steve McQueen, Victoria and David Beckham, and Lily Allen, are just some of the people who love to call The River Cafe home. On River Cafe Table 4, Rogers sits down with her customers—who have become friends—to talk about food memories. Table 4 explores how food impacts every aspect of our lives. “Foods is politics, food is cultural, food is how you express love, food is about your heritage, it defines who you and who you want to be,” says Rogers. Each week, Rogers invites her guest to reminisce about family suppers and first dates, what they cook, how they eat when performing, the restaurants they choose, and what food they seek when they need comfort. And to punctuate each episode of Table 4, guests such as Ralph Fiennes, Emily Blunt, and Alfonso Cuarón, read their favourite recipe from one of the best-selling River Cafe cookbooks. Table 4 itself, is situated near The River Cafe’s open kitchen, close to the bright pink wood-fired oven and next to the glossy yellow pass, where Ruthie oversees the restaurant. You are invited to take a seat at this intimate table and join the conversation. For more information, recipes, and ingredients, go to https://shoptherivercafe.co.uk/ Web: https://rivercafe.co.uk/ Instagram: www.instagram.com/therivercafelondon/ Facebook: https://en-gb.facebook.com/therivercafelondon/ For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iheartradio app, apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.